I get it, use of gas and oil causes pollution... But that's on the end user, no? I know people love to villify gas companies, but they are some of the most productive engines of society.
It'd be a worse situation if the money is spent, for example, running campaigns for the next elections.
A better arragement would be for the affected people to receive the tax payments directly.
Sometimes damage can be prevented instead of remediated. Sometimes it isn't about victims getting paid, but preventing people from being victimized.
Sure it would be nice if it helped victims, etc, but getting that part figured out would be a prime target for the incumbents to derail the whole process.
Victims most be compensated, but adding tax to a certain technology is just a failing band-aid as you exemplify.
The fundamental problem is people being out of the picture in all of this. The solution must necessarily have common people involved.
But villifying the companies that sell "oil" is getting ridiculous at this point. Not to mention, the "Big, bad oil companies" are some of the biggest investors in clean energy. They look at themselves as energy companies... the keyboard warriors here seem to thank that their entire marketing budget is going towards denying climate change... Comparing oil to drugs is a prime example of that line of thinking.
> But that's on the end user, no?
Pollution is a tragedy of commons scenario, so our best tools for solving it are laws and policy that force behaviour.
I'd be surprised if it's completely impossible to do the resource extraction without minimising impact, we just don't tend to have much pressure to innovate in that direction.
The end user on the other hand, has the least power to change any of the dynamics you're describing and is usually least able to choose to do without.
We also haven't agreed to punitive actions, tax credits incentivize cleaning, but there is barely any punishment or accounting of it. Else coal which is probably the worst form of energy production would not exist.
The best tools for preventing tragedies of the commons are collective and individual desire to do so. Taking action and paying personal costs are incredibly important.
On the flip side, it is extremely difficult to force change top down without people willing to lead by example.
Looks at any place with nice commons and they are maintained though widespread desire to do so by individuals. Japan isn't free a litter due to harsh fines, regulatory action, and policing.
One method of individuals expressing their collective desire in that structure is called making laws.
Murder is extremely easy and has a 50% closure rate. Most enforcement rates are much lower.
If you dont convince the vast majority of people to do something, you wont be able to set meaningful policy, and you wont be able to enforce it.
My point is to put the primary emphasis on people doing something about it, and not hypocritically telling other people to do something about it.
Imagine the alternative where they’d gone to Nixon with their research and worked with governments to gracefully transition, support rather than oppose efficiency improvements, etc. The difference in deaths will be measured in millions, and the cost to the global economy would have been trillions of dollars less.
This includes government officials. Your views will certainly collide with a politician's views on what's "good oversight".
There's a history of oil companies lying about the consequences of production and consumption...
We owe our modern world to O&G, but by now they could be producing oil & gas from CO2 -> Methane using solar / wind (/ nuclear?) and the CO2 in the air around us.
The infrastructure to do so sounds enormous, but we gloss over all the diplomacy, wars, foreign & domestic wells, tankers, refineries, ports, trucks, pipes, gas stations, etc etc we had to build in the last 100 years to actually make O&G the everyday industry it is. How many trillions? The ROI was totally worth it, but maybe it's time for more I and less R.
It's not that the industry or even oil itself is evil, it's that we can do better.
Most users don't spend billions of dollars on climate-denial propaganda, so no.
If there are many lawsuits like these, and the oil companies loose some of them, the result is that some of the exernalities are partially compensated by some of the ones earning the most on the original fault. It makes the world a slightly more fair place. The best would have been if the cost was baked in from the beginning, but alas.
Oil and gass is unfortunately still important for our economy, that's true. But it's also an existential threat to our modern way of life. Given what we now know about the absolute massive external costs, we need drastic change. We should extract as little as we can, and every single penny of surplus should go towards green energy and mitigating actions.
However, I think we need to add that being one of "the most productive engines of society" comes with great responsibility. The record profits for share holders and executives may not be enough incentive to maintain appropriate levels of that responsibility.
Overall, they deserve the hate.
I see it a lot like cigarettes, in that individuals can make very restrictive choices, governments apply looser restrictions, and manufacturers provide supply.
Like cigarettes, there was likely some legally actionable misinformation long ago that should be addressed, but nobody today can honestly claim they are tricked into thinking smoking is healthy.
The fastest and non-violent way to achieve the most efficient results is through the relative free market, education and voluntary adoption - and through purchasing power, but not through forced purchasing power - nor nonsense tax policy like the "CO2 tax" on all fuel - and therefore all products and transport involved with production and distribution of all products vs. only having a CO2 tax specifically on products from countries who's CO2 emissions are increasing or skyrocketing; penalize weighted based on actual emissions; whether CO2 emissions are actually harmful or not, CO2 can be released without releasing polluting particulate - of which CO2 isn't pollution itself.
Edit to add: use your words folks.
Are you familiar with the concepts of manufacturing consent, fear mongering, regulatory capture, turnkey authoritarianism, tyranny, etc?